Can Mont. brief end Citizens United?

Montana’s attorney general is due to file a brief Friday in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to uphold the state’s Corrupt Practices Act. This 1906 law prohibits corporations from making expenditures on behalf of candidates in Montana elections.

The Supreme Court’s response could have repercussions far beyond Montana — the case may well determine how much states can regulate money in politics after Citizens United. The state high court cited Montana’s long history of corruption, when corporations often spent unlimited sums to steal elections, as the reason to narrow Citizens United and uphold the law.

Story Continued Below

The Supreme Court should heed the Montana attorney general’s argument. More important, this case could offer the high court a viable means to revisit its Citizens United decision. This 2010 ruling, extended by lower federal courts, has spawned the super PACs now threatening to bring Wild West corruption to federal elections.

Months away from November, numerous corporations have each donated more than $1 million to super PACs dedicated to electing specific candidates. They’re not doing it for altruistic reasons. Super PACs that receive — and spend — unlimited donations from parties seeking specific government actions threaten to bring about a new Gilded Age.

Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, for example, pledged to spend up to $100 million to determine who controls federal agencies now pursuing three investigations against his company. Harold Simmons, who stands to reap extraordinary profits if nuclear waste rules are relaxed, has given super PACs $16 million — including at least $700,000 to the super PAC functioning as an arm of Mitt Romney’s campaign.

Those now challenging the Montana law say it cannot be reconciled with Citizens United. They’ve asked the court to take the extraordinary step of throwing out the Montana law without even allowing briefing and oral argument.

The court should reject this request. Montana’s history demonstrates the corruption that blooms when corporations can spend without limit to capture government. The state’s history demonstrates again and again why the anti-corruption law should stand.

Indeed, a close review of the case shows that the court would be well-served to revisit — and substantially narrow — CitizensUnited.

Montana voters adopted the Corrupt Practices Act at a time when national copper mining companies were running roughshod over the state government. “Bribery of public officials,” the Montana Supreme Court explained in its ruling, “and unlimited campaign spending by the mining interests were commonplace and well-known to the public.”

The most egregious corruption involved the Anaconda Co., a firm controlled by the powerful Standard Oil. In a struggle over mineral rights, Anaconda locked horns with an entrepreneur, F. Augustus Heinze, who had already bought and paid for the state judges in Butte. They invariably decided cases in his favor.

So Anaconda decided to put the squeeze on the remaining branches of government. The company shut down all its state operations — which put 80 percent of the Montana workforce out of a job. Then, it declared it wouldn’t start hiring until a law was passed, allowing it to avoid litigating in the Butte courts.